Indiana Wingnut Will Require Teachers To Prove Everything They Say Is True

  If 'Intelligent Design' Evolved From Creationism Then Why Are There Still Creationists?

Haw! Haw! Haw! This is what "Modern Science" actually believes!Even if they never do any real science or win any court cases in favor of their position, you kind of have to give creationists credit for occasional creativity. Sure, it’s the pathetic kind of creativity that you’d expect from a kid who’s trying for the seventeenth time this year to get out of an assignment, but it is, nonetheless, inventive. The most recent legislative heir to Arnold Horshack is Indiana state Sen. Dennis Kruse (R-Olduvai Gorge), who last year introduced a bill that would require public schools to teach creationism (it was eventually defeated), and who earlier in the current session suggested he might introduce a bill written by the creationist-oriented Discovery Institute. But apparently, someone pointed out to him that school districts and states have lost every single lawsuit aimed at suggesting creationism or “intelligent design” be taught as actual science, so he has decided to approach the issue from a new, creative angle! Kruse’s new proposal, which he calls “truth in education,” would merely require teachers “to provide evidence if students challenge their science lessons.” How could anyone possibly object to that? All it would mean is that any time a kid wants to completely derail a lesson, they could say “prove it.” This is possibly the first time that the tactics of internet trolls could be enshrined in education policy.

You will probably be astonished to learn that Mr. Kruse is the chair of Indiana’s Senate Education and Career Development Committee. And you will probably be astonished by his completely non-controversial justification for this new tactic!

“If a student thinks something isn’t true, then they can question the teacher and the teacher would have to come up with some kind of research to support that what they are teaching is true or not true.”

Kruse said he won’t try again to pass legislation that would allow schools to teach religious-based views on how life was created.

This, he said, “will be a totally different approach. It won’t mention religion. It won’t mention creation. It will just basically try to establish truth in our public schools.”

Nope, there’s no way that could possibly create havoc!

“We landed on the moon? How do you know?”

“My dad says the Constitution is based on the Bible. Why do you say it isn’t?”

“What gas chambers? I read on the internet that Zyklon-B was only used to disinfect clothes.”

“You say the Moon is 3 billion years old. But how do you know? Were you there?”

Now, of course, there are good, reality-based answers to all of these questions, and any good teacher who knows their subject should be able to answer them. That last one, about the age of the moon, prompted PZ Myers to write one of his bestest columns ever, in fact. Teachers should never fear questions. But this proposal isn’t about honest questions — it’s a very deliberate attempt to encourage trolling in the classroom.

Happily, Indiana Rep. Bob Behning, chair of the House Education Committee, says that even if Kruse’s bill passes the Senate, he is not inclined to pursue it in the House, since he considers it excessively vague:

“I don’t want to do something that’s going to burden schools to the point where they’re going to spend their lives trying to validate what is assumed to be true,” Behning said.

But how do we know that everyone assumes reality to be true? We’re just asking questions!

[Indianapolis Star / Pharyngula]

Check out Wonkette on Facebook and Twitter, and if you’re sufficiently evolved to communicate in 140 characters, Doktor Zoom is on Twitter, also, too.

Share This
 
Related video

About the author

Doktor Zoom lives in Boise, Idaho. He acquired his pseudonym after being differently punctual to too many meetings. He is not a medical doctor, although he has a real PhD (in Rhetoric and Composition).

View all articles by Doktor Zoom

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

298 comments

  1. OzoneTom

    So the teachers will have to prove creationism?

    I mean once the wingnuts finally succeed in getting Creation Science added to the curriculum of course.

    1. WhatTheHolyHeck

      The backfires could be epic. I remember when as an appeasement effort, the Canadian government required all public high schools to offer all exams in both English and French, a bunch of us got cocky and requested our 10th grade history exam in French. Unfortunately we made the request before the teacher had written it, and that exam went down in school history as the most brutally hard final ever given to a class. We were (rightfully) pariahs to our fellow students.

      I'm sure a crafty teacher in one of these Indiana schools could re-troll at least as well.

      1. emmelemm

        I believe, if you look it up in the dictionary, that story appears under "hoisted with your own petard".

      2. viennawoods13

        When the heck was that? Certainly not when I was in high school in the 70's, or since I started teaching it in the 80's.

  2. actor212

    Lemme think….doesn't a "proof" involve logic and science?

    So this oughta be a slam dunk. Now, can the wingnut prove Creationism to the same standard?

    1. criticaldragon

      Actor212,

      Off course creationism could never pass that test. If it could it would be taught in our schools as science, instead of evolution. If there really was such overwhelming evidence for creationism, creationists wouldn't have to do stupid stuff like this to keep people from learning that evolution is a fact.

      1. sewollef

        Currently, creationists and Intelligent Design believers are all about the God of Gaps' and the theory of 'irreducible complexity' in an attempt to disprove evolution. Of course it's all bullshit since it's based on finding 'gaps' in the fossil records or finding a complex organism that "theoretically" couldn't function without all parts being present, thereby inferring an intelligent designer created that organism. They then declare, "A ha! There's a gap, or, that's too complex to have evolved, therefore evolution is false." Black and white, god or the devil, good or evil.

        Evolution has to prove itself to the 'Nth' degree whilst creationists get a free pass. Theology is a bullshit non-subject for study, damn, you might as well ask a gardener his theories about god since he'll know as much as a so-called 'theologian'.

        It's no coincidence that 97-98 percent of scientists support evolution and the overwhelming majority of those are non-believers in a personal god. Atheists in other words.

  3. jaytingle

    Where can I get some Zyklon-B? I would like to freshen my clothes after I do yard work. Also, I need some napalm to help control the weeds.

    1. Chet Kincaid_

      "He's everywhere, from the comment section of your local newspaper's website to the media surrogates of Presidential campaigns — from your school-aged daughter's Facebook page to poorly-produced anti-Islam videos crudely overdubbed to enflame the Arab World. Why 2012 was the year of the Troll — and why he fucked your mother last night."

    2. James Michael Curley

      Kim Jong Un I leading Jon Sterwart by over 3.4 million votes.

      I blame Reagan who first relaxed export restrictions on on the 8086 microprocessor.

  4. MaxNeanderthal

    Ironic, I was just this morning listening to a radio discussion on Betrand Russell, and how he proved that 1+1 equals 2, by pure logic. However, I suspect the proof would be as far beyond the reach of this pismire as Quantum mechanics is beyond the reach of a pond amoeba….

    1. SmutBoffin

      The Russell/Whitehead proof of '1 + 1 = 2' takes some 300 pages of definitions and cramped statements of symbolic logic. The Principia Mathematica is widely regarded as an unreadable masterpiece.

      The proof also rests upon the assumption of the Axiom of Choice, which puts the truth of the proposition somewhat beyond the realm of pure logic.

        1. SmutBoffin

          Sorry. It's not very often you get to talk about the history of mathematics, so I take every opportunity.

          1. BadKitty904

            No need for any apology!

            While I *was* being a smart-ass, I was also genuinely impressed, all the more so since I can barely count (numbers hate me).

      1. MaxNeanderthal

        My (albeit incomplete) understanding of the discussion was piqued by Russell's proposition that the only two true nouns are the possessory pronouns "This" and "That", all other nouns being also adjectives describing the thing they are naming. So the set of cretinous republican f**kwits consists of many cretinous republican f**kwits- saying "the" cretinous republican f**kwit does not in itself define the exact cretinous republican f**kwit, as they are all subsets-within-a-set. However, holding up an Indiana senator by the ears, giving him a good shake and saying "this", implies the cretinous republican f**kwit. Saying "cretinous republican f**kwit" is superflous.
        I think…?

      2. BoatOfVelociraptors

        It's the integration of linguistics and mathematics, innit? By being able to write the glyph that enumerates the difference betwixt 1 and 2 with relational glyph you are able to calculate a nomination.

      1. SmutBoffin

        The Principia was meant to correct the paradoxes you refer to, though Gödel eventually proved that the Principia was "incomplete".

        1. GemlikeFlame

          Which he certainly did, but the real problem, the set-of-all-sets-that-are-not-members-of-themselves (barber's paradox) was sent to Bertrand and G. H. a few weeks before Principia was to be published. To their credit, they included it in an appendix, but it pretty much undermined the notion of consistency of any algebraic system strong enough to include multiplication even if you hand wave the division by zero problem. Go:del's proof is a thing of beauty, ranking with Cantor's diagonal argument.

  5. edgydrifter

    As long as someone amends the bill so that "because fuck you, dipshit" is a valid reply to these questions, I have no problem with this proposal.

  6. Hammiepants

    Honestly, do these assclowns EVER do anything that can even vaguely qualify as doing the people's business, like passing highway appropriation bills or jobs legislation, or do they just metaphorically whack off to the Bible every chance they get? Oh. Never mind…

    1. HouseOfTheBlueLights

      Well, they DID get rid of the word "lunatic." Now if only they could get rid of the actual lunatics (with votes), we'd be set.

    2. Pithaughn

      You have to understand that they truly believe in magic. See, If the USA would just pass legislation that mirrored 14th century fundamentalist beliefs then a God will bestow bounties on us again just like it didn't really happen in the 50's.
      To summ up: believe the 50's was this shining time of goodness, prosperity and just all around super duperness, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
      Since then we have chased this God entity out of the public square and so now we do not have as much magical loot as we could.

      So they truly believe they are doing the people's bidness.

      1. unclejeems

        Yeah, and even if we were bound by 14th Century fundamentalism, we'd still all be wondering whether the Pope lived in Rome or Avignon.

        1. Biel_ze_Bubba

          My eyes are going. I read that as "if we were bombed by 14ht Century fundamentalists." Just confused by the daily news, I guess.

      2. Low_Budget_Dave

        Actually, from an economics point of view, the 1950s was pretty good. The maximum tax rate was about 80%, and hardly any CEOs made enough money to pay it.

  7. MaxNeanderthal

    Doesn't "Indiana" lack a little originality in the naming dept? I mean, when the first settlers got there, looked around at all the "Indians" and said to each other "What'll we call this place? Say, I've got an idea…"

    1. rmjagg

      My cousin-in-law is from Indiana , and if I ever called her an Indian she would slap the snot out of me 'cause she is also racist …

  8. sewollef

    Richard Dawkins refers to Intelligent Design as merely Creationism with a bad tuxedo.

    I think he's too kind.

    1. Negropolis

      I think you're right, because, please, as if Creationism had enough money and class to produce a tux.

  9. Chow Yun Flat

    You will probably be astonished to learn that Mr. Kruse is the chair of Indiana’s Senate Education and Career Development Committee

    I am astonished that he isn't the chair of the Indiana Senate Science and Technology Committee (as if they would have one).

  10. LibertyLover

    Cannot Frickin' believe that in 2012 we are still retrying the Scopes Monkey Trial every dog gone year.

  11. Baconzgood

    this is a version of "why is the sky blue?" "Well why?" "Well why?" Shitck that my son gave me when he was 5.

    1. MaxNeanderthal

      Jebus was the son of god, and he is my brother. Therefore I am also a god, and as there is only one god, it is me. Therefore god exists. QED. Thimples!!

        1. MaxNeanderthal

          Your reward will be in heaven, my son. Whilst we're on the subject, i'm a bit short myself this month, please send me all your money.
          PS, the women are in the mail…

          1. Kagehi

            Well, no, actually, according to Ecclesiastics, what you get, or don’t, in this life is all there is, and you will gain no rewards, knowledge, etc. in death that you didn’t have in life. Oh, wait, sorry… I forgot, part of “theology” is selective memory loss, and/or being inexplicably unable to recognize contradictions between what you think the Babble says, and what it does, never mind all the places it contradicts itself. lol

    1. Rotundo_

      Absolute perfection. How are the little tykes or their half-wit parents going to demolish that argument? Would that I could throw more than one pee at you!

    2. rmjagg

      the teacher just wants to see all those little heads explode when the mindfuck of it all hits home …

  12. LibertyLover

    "Class!…"
    —-random classroom noise…
    "Class!…"
    —-somewhat louder random classroom noise…
    "Class!…"
    —-even louder random classroom noise…
    "SHHHHHUUUUUT UUUUPP!"

    "Thank you."

    1. Poindexter718

      "Young man …. young man! Give me that knife."
      –THWATTT!!!
      "Thank you."
      (it's the short-term memory that's goes."

  13. smitallica

    I propose that, when a teacher is asked by a student for proof of evolution, that teacher answers by forcibly removing the tailbone, appendix, and hindbrain from one or both of that child's parents and showing it to them.

    1. Pithaughn

      Or my favorite, why do the tubes from your nuts go clear up into your abdomen before looping back down to your dick? If they get that right then ask why elephant testes are not external.
      This is from "101 ways to make your biology teacher blush" circa 1967

    1. LibertyLover

      My guess is that he would fall flat on his face.

      But it's an educated guess, like all good science should be.

  14. weejee

    Usually folks playing the rocks dating game use the rubidium-strontium dating method and look at the ratio of 87Sr/86Sr to derive the date. Suggest Sen. Dennis Kruse (R-Olduvai Gorge) try the 90Sr method, and drink a large glass of full of strontium 90 and when his bones start to glow he'll be able to ask God how old the moon is.

  15. Chet Kincaid_

    Here's a solution: give every kid an NFL Challenge Flag that they can use once a year. If the little hump throws his/her flag, and the teacher successfully answers the challenge, the kid loses an entire letter grade on the class that semester. "Feelin' lucky, punk? Now sit down, shut the fuck up, and you might come out of my classroom smarter than your Bible-thumping parents."

  16. Schmannnity

    This should be an interesting development for sex education teachers. Oh wait, Indiana? Nevermind.

  17. smellypossum

    An average science teacher should(?) be able to explain the factual basis of their lessons and NOT fall back on fairy tales masqerading as the word of a supreme being (from planet Kolob).

    Don't fear the pubescent trolls.

    1. aklibtard

      The problem with that is the requirement that the teacher come up with research to prove it. That means that the teacher will be required to go to peer-reviewed journals every time a kid makes the teach prove the moon exists.

      1. Kagehi

        I think they are counting on the fact that teachers are often underpaid, not always teaching the class they know, and that, in places like Indiana, the people bothering to even become teachers are *probably* going to be the sort that put Bible versus up on the walls, and call it, “persecution”, if you tell them they can’t, as a public official, do that. I.e., they probably couldn’t prove water was wet, without quoting a Bible.

  18. Pithaughn

    Oh yeah Mr PE teacher, if exercising is so good for us why do have a beer gut the size Rhode Island??

      1. Pithaughn

        “A tumor?? Better call the Discover channel, they will totes want to make an episode when you get that removed”

  19. SorosBot

    I welcome this tactic as it would apply to the fundie's own bullshit. Guess what, we can prove that the Earth is about 4.5 billion year old, and the universe about 13.7; meanwhile they can't even prove that their Jesus ever even existed.

    1. Doktor Zoom

      Excuse me, I have a Book, written by God, which says that this is true. You cannot dispute that.

        1. Chet Kincaid_

          Speaking of which, why is Peter Jackson milking the fuck out of that little children's book, "The Hobbit", to make three over-stuffed movies?! It appears he has loaded the narrative with material from Tolkien's pile of musty notebooks, but the only people who would care about these "begats" would frighten children away from the theaters. And now, the latest criticism is that this 48 fps 3D digital he shot it in is so sharp and real that everything looks like a video game.

          1. Low_Budget_Dave

            He made THREE movies out of "The Hobbit"?

            Putting aside the fact that I get all my entertainment news from Wonkette, wasn't "The Hobbit" just one book? A lot of stuff happened in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" too, but you don't see Blake Edwards film weekends with just one movie, do you?

    2. HouseOfTheBlueLights

      According to them, they don't need proof; only scientists need proof. Which, of course is entirely the point of science, demonstrating once again how little these fucktards understand what science is.

      1. malsperanza

        See, this is where science gets it so wrong. If scientists just answered "Because I have faith that it is so" to every challenge from a fundamentalist, the whole thing would be settled much faster.

  20. Callyson

    “If a student thinks something isn’t true, then they can question the teacher and the teacher would have to come up with some kind of research to support that what they are teaching is true or not true.”

    Well, this is an easy fix–all the teacher has to do is reply to a question with "What an excellent point. Class, tomorrow we will have a quiz on this topic. Study hard!"

    1. TaggWatchesYou

      In my classes, I turned the student's question into a personal research assignment. It didn't stop all the questions, but it sure as hell limited them to ones they were actually interested in.

  21. Misty Malarky

    Fortunately, most of the little shits who'd be asking those smartass questions are being home schooled.

  22. SorosBot

    This would really open the doors, though, to the conspiracy theory idiots in history and English classes; "Al Queada attacked the World Trade Center" "Prove it!", "Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald", "Prove it!", "Hamlet was written by Shakespeare", "Prove it!".

    1. BigSkullF*ckingDog

      This situation actually reminds me a lot of me as a kid. I, however, was just trying to be a smartass.

    2. Spider-Jerk

      That's thinking small — think what this will do for students in mathematics and chemistry classes! In my own experience, somewhere around half the teachers couldn't even teach the subject, much less explain the why or how of it; in such a class, this would be a godsend for any little shits who don't want to do anything.

      1. BoatOfVelociraptors

        Oh goodness. That reminds me of the time I teased my geometry teacher along for 80 steps of a proof that was fallacious. I wonder why I never got laid in high school.

  23. valthemus

    “You say the Moon is 3 billion years old. But how do you know? Were you there?”

    "I hear Mary got pregnant with Jesus without fucking her husband and letting him cum in her vagina. Were you there?"

  24. RalphCrown

    But if it's not on the test, how can you waste time talking about it? All that thinking and logic, better not to put a strain on the little snowflakes. I hear they're going to outlaw critical thinking next year anyway, why bother.

  25. Poindexter718

    These are the same fecks who are constantly prattling on about the "breakdown in authority," and "relativism" and loss of "respect for elders" and who would beat their kids senseless if they deigned to challenge their pedophile priests and corrupt preachers to "prove it" when they talk about the Lord next Sunday.

  26. Baconzgood

    Unrelated to this post

    I don't know what the Wonkettez done but now I can comment on my mobile most easieyer. Thanks wonkette.

  27. smellypossum

    And with less than 2 weeks until the end of the Maya calendar, you shitheads in Indiana better start praying to Kukulkna/ Quezalcoatl, or the Chaacs.

    Go ahead… Prove that you shouldn't.

  28. BigSkullF*ckingDog

    If these fuckers had their way every generation would start over with rocks and sticks.
    FFS

  29. BigSkullF*ckingDog

    I would like to see some archaeological evidence of the garden of Eden, or Noah and the flood, or maybe Jesus' cross is laying around somewhere? What? You guys even lost those stone tablets?

    1. natl_[redacted]_cmdr

      You guys even lost those stone tablets?

      God: "Medammit. They were here a second ago."

    2. Negropolis

      I take it you've never heard of relics? Every Catholic church and their mamma was fighting for pieces of Jesus's hair of Jesus's cross or, well, you get it.

    3. Biel_ze_Bubba

      There's a ton of pieces of the True Cross, relics revered by true believers all over the world. Literally, a ton. (Which proves that Jeebus was strong!)

      1. BoatOfVelociraptors

        A Jew buff enough to drag a ton of his own wood up the hill. Sounds kinda hot. And then you add whips to the story? Damn.

      1. Biel_ze_Bubba

        You can use the Bible, 'cause it's the word of God.
        It says so right there in the Bible! (QED and suchlike, also.)

  30. coolhandnuke

    Wasn't Juan Epstein the assignment-shirking excuse-inventive Sweathog rather than Horshack? A note from Epstein's mother might answer all questions concerning Indiana.

    1. Doktor Zoom

      Good lord, you are right. I thought of Epstein briefly, but until I read the words "Epstein's mother" I didn't realize I had the wrong guy. I stand corrected.

  31. James Michael Curley

    Let the Indiana Department of Education have its way. Then when the first student asks a teacher to prove nuclear fission occurs the whole problem of Indiana will be solved.

  32. OneYieldRegular

    Where's that lawyer who smacked down Orly Taitz by insinuating that she was less evolved than a rhesus monkey? He should be assigned to this case as a reward.

  33. Tundra Grifter

    I'd like to see a teacher prove that in 2012 we have Capitalism in America.

    Be careful what you wish for, wing nutz!

  34. Tundra Grifter

    It's not a Theory of Evolution, but I do know it can be dangerous to try to monkey around with a girl wearing gorilla trademark pants.

  35. BaldarTFlagass

    Damn I hate it when I get here late and all the good snark is already taken. Stupid traffic congestion.

  36. BaldarTFlagass

    He grew up in an Indiana town
    Had a bible-thumpin' mama whose brain just wasn't sound
    So he grew up dumb, and his wing was right
    In that Indiana church, now he gives us all a fright

    Last Dance with Kruse's brain
    Fucker's just a human stain
    I feel Jesus creepin' in
    And I'm tired of this clown again

    *♫badass Mike Campbell jamout solo♪*

    1. BaldarTFlagass

      Sure wish I didn't have all these work filters, so I could use the Google to find out what punk band it was all those years ago that put out that romantic little ditty "If You Love Me You'll Swallow My Load."

      1. Blueb4sinrise

        Meet them? I keep sending them money, but they keep having problems with Russian and U.S. regulations and stuff and can't seem to get here.

        1. viennawoods13

          Hey, I should have lots of money soon. I got a letter from Gadaffi's lawyer. Did you know he has no living beneficiaries? and if I help this nice old guy do…something… He just needs my sincerity, honesty, and good faith, and I get 35% of 30 million!!

          1. Biel_ze_Bubba

            Put him in touch with the Russian bride broker. He's probably sitting at the next table in the internet cafe.

  37. Shadowmuffin

    I would answer the challenges with a homework assignment, in which the student has to dig up the research themselves. Troll that bitch!

    1. Doktor Zoom

      Where was that stubble-faced foul-breathed old man I called Papa when the merry-go-round broke down?

        1. Negropolis

          Well, the Lord God made it on on of the first few days, so he had time to work out the kinks by the sixth.

  38. poorgradstudent

    That will be fun for the History teachers. "How do we know that Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were beheaded in the French Revolution? Well, I got their heads…RIGHT HERE."

  39. imissopus

    So any kid in any class can hold up everything by saying "Magnets, how do they fucking work? Oh yeah? Prove it!" I have to say I might be in favor of this.

  40. pdiddycornchips

    Can we use this law outside the classroom?

    "How do you know he;s a muslim"! "Exactly what freedom are you losing"? "Can you prove the election was won by fraud"? Yeah, thought so.

  41. Sharkey

    This would seem to require teaching the fundamentals of logic to first graders. I'm okay with that, despite the fact that reading and writing don't matter to those students.

    1. FeloniousMonk

      I think the problem is that this would license middle- and high-schoolers to use first-grade logic. "My dad says the earth is 6,000 years old." "The consensus of informed opinion is that he's off by about six orders of magnitude." "My dad can whup your ass. And you just disrespected my religion."

  42. Warpde

    If you ever wanted to mind fuck a God believing creationist just ask them this.

    "How do you know I'm not God?
    Do you really want to take the chance?"

      1. Terry

        Exactly. I need a nice, handsome man who could fall for a semi-decrepit older woman. Instead, they're showing me young babes. They're not targeting their right demographic.

  43. Boojum

    This is easy. The teacher responds, "You have a very good point, penis. Therefore, tomorrow, I want you to write five pages on the subject. I will also have some research available. If your paper agrees with the obvious and verifiable facts, you don't fail and have to go work here.

  44. Negropolis

    OT: Shit just got real in Michigan, today. Protestors rushing senate chambers and being pepper sprayed, Dem legislators walking out of the capitol and then the State Police locking the doors forcing them to go to court to get the doors back open, the state's hackish budget director sending out a memo to state employees to 'no walk alone' at night when going home (read: union thugs will rape you)…and this is just Day 1 of the Right-to-Work-(for-less) debacle.

  45. gullywompr

    It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…" We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood. It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are not among them.

    ~ Stephen Jay Gould – "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2 (May 1981)

  46. Negropolis

    Is "Career Development" a rename of the state's labor department? Because I know as soon as Snyder got in here in Michigan, he took the state's labor department and renamed it the "Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs", you know, 'cause labor is dirty and thuggish.

  47. Biel_ze_Bubba

    So long as the kids can ask the same questions in Sunday school, I think I might be OK with this.

  48. criticaldragon

    Doktor Zoom,

    Dennis Kruse apparently is desperate to keep kids from learning about evolution before he and his fellow young earth creationists can brainwash them into believing that everything in the Bible is literally true.

  49. DerrickWildcat

    A Brief History Creation/Intelligent Design witchery.
    Edwards v. Aguillard 1987
    A landmark Louisiana decision where teaching Creationism in school violates the Establishment Clause (You know, the thing that wingnuts say doesn't exist) based on the Lemon Test.
    It outlawed the teaching of Creationism in Public School. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

    1991: Intelligent Design created by crackpot Born-Again Lawyer, Phillip Johnson. Yes, created by a Lawyer and not a Sciencey guy. Essentially a way to circumvent the Edwards v. Aguillard decision. By declaring that there are just certain things that are too complicated to have evolved on their own, an Intelligent Designer must have guided the process. This in theory bypasses the Establishment Clause as long as the Intelligent Designer is not the Christian God of the Bible. However, as we all know, if pressed enough, an IDer will state the Christian God of the Bible is the Designer.
    So then it runs into Edwards v. Aguillard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson

    Kitzmiller v. Dover 2005. The Intelligent Design Trial
    A School in Dover, Pa teaches Intelligent Design in a Public School.
    Nova did an amazing show on this case and it won a Peabody Award.
    Please watch. It is stunning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hTZ5AYzs8o

    If one were to just look at the cast of players on the side of the defense before the trial started…it looked bad for the ACLU.
    The Discovery Institute immediately jumped into the middle because it was the first defense of Intelligent Design. The Thomas More Law Center also came to the defense. Before the case, Rick Santorum sat on the Board of Directors of Thomas More. Rick Santorum also came really close to getting Intelligent Design added to the No Child Left Behind Act. Judge John E. Jones III, a Conservative Republican appointed by Dubya oversaw the case. It looked like a stacked deck for the defense.
    However, the defense was so wildly inept and infighting behind the scenes between Thomas More and the Discovery Institute they ended up looking like total idiots. Two, defense witnesses were caught lying on the stand by the Judge.

    Intelligent Design can only exist if its proponents don't outwardly admit that the Christian God of the Bible is the Designer. When they do that, it's just Creationism. However, Intelligent Design proponents are too stupid to understand that and often use the terms Creationism and Intelligent Design interchangeably. When they do that, they've lost the argument. It is really easy to bait IDers to fall into that trap.

    Fundamentally, Intelligent Design is nothing more than the tired old, "God of the Gaps" argument…and that is the antithesis of Scientific knowledge.

    1. DerrickWildcat

      P.S. If Creationists/Intelligent Designerers lied into the face of a Federal Judge you can bet that they will lie into your face. Just keep that in mind if you ever have to deal with them.

        1. FeloniousMonk

          Well, shoot. I had a really witty reply to this*, but IntenseDebate keeps eating it. Man from Porlock! Don't talk to me about no man from Porlock!

          *No I didn't, but you can't prove that, can you? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! Donc, Dieu existe!

    2. Biel_ze_Bubba

      Kitzmiller v. Dover 2005. The Intelligent Design Trial
      A School in Dover, Pa preaches Intelligent Design in a Public School.

      FIFY

      What's really pathetic is that the fundies are too fucking idiotic to figure out that they cannot possibly win. The fact that Science is never 100% sure of anything — which the fundies believe is its weak point — is what ensures that it wins out, every time.

  50. BoatOfVelociraptors

    It's the ads. I sent an email listing the number of domains that this page requests to the editrix. 70 dns lookups at 100 ms per is seven seconds.

  51. godistwaddle

    Back when I was in the classroom, I LOVED it when a student said, "Prove it." He indicated he was involved; he indicated curiosity; he did what students are SUPPOSED to do; and, of course, he made me scratch gravel thinking-wise to oblige him, always a good thing.

  52. ttommyunger

    So, Missouri is the "Show Me" State and Indiana is the "Prove It" State. If I can figure out which one is the "Fuck Off" State, I'm moving.

  53. TaggWatchesYou

    To prove evolution, Indiana schools will now be converted to Battle Royale deathfields in which the last student standing receives a full scholarship to the university of their choice.

  54. alleee

    I'm game. What this means is we need a unit on what constitutes "proof," and what exactly evidence is. Also, what scientific consensus means. Once we've done that, the creationists would have to slink off.

  55. labman57

    Scientific theories deal with evidence, not proof.

    The Indiana legislation is pure silliness, demonstrating another Republican politician’s scientific illiteracy, because the empirical and mathematical evidence supporting a scientific concept or theory is almost always incorporated into the curriculum for purposes of class discussion.

    The problem is that the deniers will simply deny the validity of the scientific evidence since it conflicts with their interpretation of that popular work of fiction known as the Bible.

    1. Doktor Zoom

      How the hell does this comment have a score of "0" even with the downfist disabled?

      Mind…BLOWN.

  56. Roger_of_Arabia

    I want the biblical literalists who believe all of creation is only 6,000 years old to explain to me how we can see stars that are millions and billions of light years away. If God created the heavens and the Earth at the same time as it says in Genesis, then shouldn't the sky be black except for the planets and stars less than 6,000 light years away?

Comments are closed.